HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Wolski and his QO

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-28-2011, 07:18 PM
  #51
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Our defense prospects will be ready for third pair duty long before our left prospects will be quality second liners. Plus, Fasth is a right winger. We really have only Kreider as a potential second line LW, in addition to MZA and WW.

If we sign Parise, we are set for many years.

On the other hand, if we sign Weber, we will likely be in the in the bottom-3 in goals against every year. Can't go wrong with Weber.

But if the question is Weber or Parise, you gotta go with the LW.
Miller is projected as a C/LW. Hagelin is also a LW. Yogan can also play LW.

NYR Viper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 07:22 PM
  #52
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Don't want Weber anyway. The guy will get a ridiculous amount of money.

I don't see how we can fit Parise under the cap and still retain guys when they're due for raises.

The salary cap will probably be going down next year.
If the Rangers can sign Shea Weber then you move whoever you have to. He is a young, perennial Norris trophy finalist. On top of that, he is incredibly hard to play against and has a rocket of a shot which is good for 20 goals a year + a ton of assists off of rebounds.

Same goes for Parise. If signing Parise means not being able to meet the expectations of players like Wolski/Anisimov/Sauer then you move them later on and grab good, young cheap players to replace them.

NYR Viper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 07:30 PM
  #53
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
I think the Rangers are and will be fine without Parise and/or Weber.

They made a commitment to Richards, Gaborik, and Lundqvist as their high-priced players.

We just signed Richards this summer.

Cap is going down, not up. We can't afford anymore high-priced players.

I don't believe we can afford to move whomever to make room for anymore big contracts.

Things are going to get interesting/hairy/potentially depressing when the CBA expires.

I sincerely hope they work a way to retain RFA's without being penalized by the cap. There needs to be a separate cap for RFA and UFA.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 07:35 PM
  #54
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
I can't even think about another lockout. It makes me physically ill.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 07:39 PM
  #55
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLU Hockey View Post
It isn't in the cards. Richards had tangible connections to NYR and wanted to come here, conveniently at a time when the cap jumped.

Parise is just Ranger fans wanting the big thing every time the FA season rolls around, regardless of whether it is tangible financially.
It's tangible. It just means choices have to be made. Also, with both Weber and Parise, they will get 10+ years on the open market which will most likely keep their cap hit down.

Move Wolski's rights and they would be fine for next season. Avery is gone and Drury's buy-out drops significantly.

Here is the deal:

2012-2013

The Rangers have 15.66 million available going into next season barring a drop or rise in the Salary cap.

They have the following players to re-sign:
Prust
Wolski
MZA
Biron
AVery
Christensen
Fedotenko
Eminger
Del Zotto

IMO, I could see them trying to re-sign the following:
Prust
MZA
Biron
Del Zotto

Say, collectively, they get about 5.5 million which I think is reasonable for those (4). You now have the following line-up:

_______-Richards-Gaborik
Dubinsky-Anisimov-Callahan
_______-Stepan-MZA
Rupp-Boyle-Prust
________

Staal-Girardi
McDonagh-Sauer
Erixon-MDZ

Hank
Biron

Cap Space - 10 million.

The Rangers sign Kreider to a contract, including bonuses, for 1.5 million.

Cap Space - 8.5 million

Plenty of space next season to sign Weber or Parise to a long-term deal (considering the fact that the Rangers would move a defenseman if they signed Weber).



2013-2014

Cap Space 22.5 million - 5.5 million from re-signings from previous season - Kreider(1.5) = 15.5 million

Players that need to be re-signed:
Anisimov
Stepan
McDonagh
Sauer

Say those players re-sign for a total of 9 million.

Cap Space - 6.5 million with no rise or fall in the Salary Cap

Line-up:

_______-Richards-Gaborik
Dubinsky-Anisimov-Callahan
Kreider-Anisimov-MZA
Rupp-Boyle-Prust

Staal-Girardi
McDonagh-Sauer
MDZ-Erixon

Hank
Biron

One would also HAVE to assume that the Rangers would make a deal to move some of the players above to open up spots for young players like McIlrath, Kundratek, Miller, Thomas, etc.

Thay have space on a long-term deal that year as well.

Sorry, I was bored. Just want to show that they COULD fit them IF they wanted to AND the cap doesnt drop significantly.

NYR Viper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 08:07 PM
  #56
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
It's tangible. It just means choices have to be made. Also, with both Weber and Parise, they will get 10+ years on the open market which will most likely keep their cap hit down.

Move Wolski's rights and they would be fine for next season. Avery is gone and Drury's buy-out drops significantly.

Here is the deal:

2012-2013

The Rangers have 15.66 million available going into next season barring a drop or rise in the Salary cap.

They have the following players to re-sign:
Prust
Wolski
MZA
Biron
AVery
Christensen
Fedotenko
Eminger
Del Zotto

IMO, I could see them trying to re-sign the following:
Prust
MZA
Biron
Del Zotto

Say, collectively, they get about 5.5 million which I think is reasonable for those (4). You now have the following line-up:

_______-Richards-Gaborik
Dubinsky-Anisimov-Callahan
_______-Stepan-MZA
Rupp-Boyle-Prust
________

Staal-Girardi
McDonagh-Sauer
Erixon-MDZ

Hank
Biron

Cap Space - 10 million.

The Rangers sign Kreider to a contract, including bonuses, for 1.5 million.

Cap Space - 8.5 million

Plenty of space next season to sign Weber or Parise to a long-term deal (considering the fact that the Rangers would move a defenseman if they signed Weber).



2013-2014

Cap Space 22.5 million - 5.5 million from re-signings from previous season - Kreider(1.5) = 15.5 million

Players that need to be re-signed:
Anisimov
Stepan
McDonagh
Sauer

Say those players re-sign for a total of 9 million.

Cap Space - 6.5 million with no rise or fall in the Salary Cap

Line-up:

_______-Richards-Gaborik
Dubinsky-Anisimov-Callahan
Kreider-Anisimov-MZA
Rupp-Boyle-Prust

Staal-Girardi
McDonagh-Sauer
MDZ-Erixon

Hank
Biron

One would also HAVE to assume that the Rangers would make a deal to move some of the players above to open up spots for young players like McIlrath, Kundratek, Miller, Thomas, etc.

Thay have space on a long-term deal that year as well.

Sorry, I was bored. Just want to show that they COULD fit them IF they wanted to AND the cap doesnt drop significantly.
Weber is not a UFA next year. He's still RFA. The big ticket UFAs are Parise and Suter next offseason.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 08:13 PM
  #57
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,376
vCash: 500
Next year is not a CBA-expiring year. Bonuses won't count unless they actually meet them (against the cap). Helps with Erixon, McDonagh and Kreider.

iamitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 08:16 PM
  #58
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Cap is going down, not up
Based on what? If the Cap gets reduced in the new CBA, there is no way it doesn't come with the same kind of proportional salary reduction we saw last time. Therefore, it won't matter. The Cap isn't going down because of revenue reduction, that's for sure.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 08:22 PM
  #59
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,699
vCash: 500
Why is everyone worried about another lockout?

Jabroni is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 08:55 PM
  #60
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
Miller is projected as a C/LW. Hagelin is also a LW. Yogan can also play LW.

Yogan is unlikely to be a second liner. The idea that he would be that within two years is preposterous. I will be glad if he becomes a young version of Feds in 4 years.

Miller is projected as a quality third liner by experts (aka not over-optimistic fans). Granted he may become the next Dubinsky, who was also projected to be a quality third liner. But he could also be a bust.

Either way he wont be a second liner within a couple of years.

Hagelin is the only one with even a slight chance of being a second liner within two years, but it's HIGHLY doubtful. He will probably never develop into a second liner, much less in the next 2 years.

As I've said, Kreider is our only hope and even he is a long shot in the next 2 years. The others highly likely will never be second liners.


Last edited by Beacon: 09-28-2011 at 10:30 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 09:43 PM
  #61
fredrikstad
Registered User
 
fredrikstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
WW had 65 points the season before last. If he gets 70 this season, that's two great seasons in three years. If that happens, he deserves his $3.8 qualifying offer regardless of anything else. If you can get a 0.8 to 0.9 ppg player for $4, you do it.

We can still free up space for Parise. With Avery, Feds and Christ leaving, plus over $2 coming off the books for Drury, we have $48,733,334 tied up already with $15,566,666 available.

Estimated salaries to be added, rounded up to the nearest million:

Wolski: $4
MDZ: $1
Another Defenseman (Eminger/Kundratek/Parlett): $1
Third line rookie (Hagelin/Kreider/Bourque): $1
Weise: $1

That's $8, with about $7.5 left over for Parise.

We can afford to re-sign either Wolski or Zuccarello, and have enough space for Parise, but we cannot afford both WW and MZA.

Honestly, I would only match WW's contract if he matched his 2009-10 season of 65 points in 80 games. Anything short of that and he would have to take a paycut.
As I have understand the CBA,Zuccarellos QO would be like 945? His actuall salary this year is 900k and the rest of the cap hit is bonuses.
What would he have to put up with this year,to defend an offer at 945k-1.000 000?

fredrikstad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 10:15 PM
  #62
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 19,898
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
You guys really think we'd let a 60-70 point player WALK if he gets it?

Doubted.

Fire Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 10:52 PM
  #63
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Sather View Post
You guys really think we'd let a 60-70 point player WALK if he gets it?

Doubted.
it also depends on how he gets the points, how hard he works away from the puck etc...he has to do more than just be lucky enough to play with richards and gaborik to earn a new deal

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2011, 11:42 PM
  #64
SERE 24
LGR
 
SERE 24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Yogan is unlikely to be a second liner. The idea that he would be that within two years is preposterous. I will be glad if he becomes a young version of Feds in 4 years.

Miller is projected as a quality third liner by experts (aka not over-optimistic fans). Granted he may become the next Dubinsky, who was also projected to be a quality third liner. But he could also be a bust.

Either way he wont be a second liner within a couple of years.

Hagelin is the only one with even a slight chance of being a second liner within two years, but it's HIGHLY doubtful. He will probably never develop into a second liner, much less in the next 2 years.

As I've said, Kreider is our only hope and even he is a long shot in the next 2 years. The others highly likely will never be second liners.
What experts are these? You don't use the #15 pick on a kid who projects to "one day be a good third liner". If his development doesn't go the way you hoped and it's a couple years down the line that you're saying "he should be a quality third liner" that's a different story, but you don't draft a kid #15 in June and in September he's projected as a third liner. Draft time people were comparing him to a Kesler-lite and saying that depending on his development, he could be a sleeper and turn out to be one of the best players from this draft class. And with his desire to be an NHLer, you have to think he can't be more than 2 years from at least playing 30-40 games on the third line as a rookie with plenty of upward mobility from there.

Dubinsky, by the way, was drafted 60th and was still projected to be have top-six potential, if he reached his full potential.

SERE 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 12:22 AM
  #65
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Sather View Post
You guys really think we'd let a 60-70 point player WALK if he gets it?

Doubted.


we let this near 60 pt player walk.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=3664

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 12:30 AM
  #66
SERE 24
LGR
 
SERE 24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
we let this near 60 pt player walk.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=3664
This is true, AND he put up 58 for us that year and 61 the year before. And he was asking for less than Wolski's QO will be.

SERE 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 12:48 AM
  #67
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
What experts are these? You don't use the #15 pick on a kid who projects to "one day be a good third liner".

I knew this would be the response. This is fan-thinking, aka thinking by someone who can only remember players who made it, but forgets all those who did not.

At #15, a player has worse than 50-50 odds of making the NHL in any capacity as a regular player. This summer I posted the exact statistics from past drafts. If the player drafted at #15 does make it, he's most likely going to be a garbage role player, laughably far from the top-6. The odds of being a top-6 forward after being drafted at #15, especially in a weak draft, are remarkably low. I can pretty much guarantee you that no more than 1 out of the 10 players drafted between #11 and #20 in 2011 will be a second liner.

A player drafted at #15 in a weak draft has MAYBE a 1 in 10 chance of being a top-6 forward.

The following are the #15 picks from 1997 to 2007. Of these 11 picks, Radulov is the only one I would call a top-6 player, and he's not proven either. If Wolski left at the same point of his career, people would also sing his praises. In their first two NHL seasons (2006-07 and 2007-08), Radulov had 95 points in 145 games while Wolski had 98 points in 143 games. Not necessarily comparing the two, but just making a point that Radulov wasn't exactly proven.

The other 10 players outright suck.

1997: Matt Zultek
1998: Mathieu Chouinard
1999: Scott Kelman
2000: Artem Kryukov
2001: Igor Knyazev
2002: Jesse Niinimaki
2003: Robert Nilsson
2004: Alex Radulov
2005: Ryan O'Marra
2006: Ty Wishart
2007: Alex Plante
(Players drafted in the last 3 years are too young to be judged, so I always exclude them.)

As you can see, #15 picks don't all become top-6. If you can get a high quality third liner with mid-first rounder, you are far ahead of 90% of the league. Expecting your #15 selection to become a top-6 forward is nothing more than buying into hype only to be disappointed.


Last edited by Beacon: 09-29-2011 at 12:56 AM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 12:54 AM
  #68
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
Dubinsky, by the way, was drafted 60th and was still projected to be have top-six potential, if he reached his full potential.

Dubinsky already cracked the NHL and played for two years, yet everyone was still saying his max potential is as a third liner. Who the hell projected him as top-6 in 2004?

Do you realize that a second rounder has only about a 1 in 5 chance of becoming any kind of an NHLer? That's right: 80% of second rounders never make it. If Dubi was thought to be a future second liner, he'd have gone in the top-10.

The only way a potential top-6 slips into the second round is if he's high risk due to size, injury or attitude problem. Dubinsky had none of those problems. At the time he was drafted, nobody thought he was anything special. He was the last of the Rangers' four second rounders that year.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 01:09 AM
  #69
SERE 24
LGR
 
SERE 24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I knew this would be the response. This is fan-thinking, aka thinking by someone who can only remember players who made it, but forgets all those who did not.

At #15, a player has worse than 50-50 odds of making the NHL in any capacity as a regular player. This summer I posted the exact statistics from past drafts. If the player drafted at #15 does make it, he's most likely going to be a garbage role player, laughably far from the top-6.

A player drafted at #15 in a weak draft has MAYBE a 1 in 5 chance of being a top-6 forward.

The following are the #15 picks from 1997 to 2007. Of these 11 picks, Radulov is the only one I would call a top-6 player, and he's not proven either. If Wolski left at the same point of his career, people would also sing his praises. In their first two NHL seasons (2006-07 and 2007-08), Radulov had 95 points in 145 games while Wolski had 98 points in 143 games. Not necessarily comparing the two, but just making a point that Radulov wasn't exactly proven.

The other 10 players outright suck.

1997: Matt Zultek
1998: Mathieu Chouinard
1999: Scott Kelman
2000: Artem Kryukov
2001: Igor Knyazev
2002: Jesse Niinimaki
2003: Robert Nilsson
2004: Alex Radulov
2005: Ryan O'Marra
2006: Ty Wishart
2007: Alex Plante
(Players drafted in the last 3 years are too young to be judged, so I always exclude them.)

As you can see, #15 picks don't all become top-6. If you can get a high quality third liner with mid-first rounder, you are far ahead of 90% of the league. Expecting your #15 selection to become a top-6 forward is nothing more than buying into hype only to be disappointed.
That's all really quite irrelevant. Players not reaching their potential and players not having that potential are two different things. A lot of those players, specifically Chouinard, O'Mara, Nilsson, Radulov, Wishart and Plante had fairly large expectations. Not meeting them is not the same as not having the potential. Not to mention the fact that #10-30 is always going to have a high failure rate, because once you're outside of the top 10, you're going for boom or bust players. You're looking for players who can be an impact player, and acknowledging that they may not pan out. That's not the same as third line potential. How many of those players are playing on third lines?

Meanwhile, Plante still has the potential to be a good player, and ignoring the last 3 years (read: most relevant) is convenient since they include Erik Karlsson and Derek Forbort, who a LOT of people are very high on. Meanwhile, narrowing it down to the #15 pick specifically is an exercise in absolute futility, as it's not about the number you're picking at, it's about the range. No two drafts are the same. Try looking at the NHLers selected 13-17 (two picks in either direction) in the past 8 years.

Notables Include:

Gormley, Forbort & Tarasenko (2010)
Kulikov, Kassian & Leddy (2009)
Boychuk & Karlsson (2008)
Eller & Shattenkirk (2007) McD was #12
Grabner (2006)
Hanzal (2005) M. Staal was 12, Kopitar was 11
Stafford & Radulov (2004)
D. Brown, Parise & Seabrook (2003)

Bold is a player who has made an impact at the NHL level. There were some debatable ones I excluded. The point is, when you're picking in the 15 range, you are NOT picking a player projected to be a third liner, and saying a pick from June IS projected to be a third liner, in September, is just inaccurate. If the argument/point you want to make is that we'll be lucky if Miller is capable of making an impact on the 3rd/2nd line within the next few years, fine. It's a different argument. There is simply no way a kid who was drafted 3 months ago at #15 is projected by "experts" to be a third liner right now though. If there's a red flag half way through his OHL season, or a big injury, or next year he's not taking a step forward, the expectations will likely drop, but RIGHT NOW, immediately after his draft, you can bet the organizations is "projecting" Miller to be a top six player.


Last edited by SERE 24: 09-29-2011 at 01:18 AM.
SERE 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 01:15 AM
  #70
SERE 24
LGR
 
SERE 24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Dubinsky already cracked the NHL and played for two years, yet everyone was still saying his max potential is as a third liner. Who the hell projected him as top-6 in 2004?

Do you realize that a second rounder has only about a 1 in 5 chance of becoming any kind of an NHLer? That's right: 80% of second rounders never make it. If Dubi was thought to be a future second liner, he'd have gone in the top-10.

The only way a potential top-6 slips into the second round is if he's high risk due to size, injury or attitude problem. Dubinsky had none of those problems. At the time he was drafted, nobody thought he was anything special. He was the last of the Rangers' four second rounders that year.
You're wrong and I'm sorry. Statistics =/= potential. The odds of a 2nd rounder actually becoming a top six player is low because it's impossible to predict whether an 18 year old kid will reach his potential and continue to develop. There's a picks maximum potential (ceiling) and the possibility that he busts and doesn't become an NHLer. Plenty of late first and, yes, even 2nd round picks have top-six ceilings. Teams acknowledge that their picks might not reach those ceilings, but that has nothing to do with whether or not that potential is there. Tell me, why draft a talented kid, without size, who isn't physical or possessing any attributes that would make him an intriguing energy line player in the 5th round unless he has long shot potential to be a scorer and play third line or better? In your opinion, because the statistics say so, a guy drafted in the fifth round can't possibly have top-six potential, so why waste a pick on an offensive minded, smallish player? Why not just take a grinder since his maximum upside will be role player?

SERE 24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 01:21 AM
  #71
donpaulo
Capt Barry Beck
 
donpaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: nihon
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,612
vCash: 500
not sure I buy the Wolski OR Parise zero sum game conclusion, because it would be Wolski + $ or Parise.

You can still make the same argument but it is not simply 1 for 1. Its 1+ for 1.

As far as Wolski goes I would expect to see at least 50 points from him as long as he is getting top 6 minutes. I am hoping for 60, especially if he goes to the net looking for rebounds.

Many have suggested and rightly so that Dubinsky would be a great fit on that line too.

Personally I also like the thought of Boyle getting some time too.

......

As far as who NYR would target next season my view is that one of Suter or Weber should be top of the list.

Girardi is a heck of a player, but honestly he would be an AWESOME 2nd pairing guy and simply an ADEQUATE top pairing guy.

Bringing in a Weber would improve NY's backline significantly

the NYR are creating a nice situation for themselves, now they need to continue to develop additional younger players who can either backfill the roster thus avoiding signing guys like Fedotenko or having the asset necessary to secure a rental player for the playoffs.

cup is half full this season

donpaulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 01:48 AM
  #72
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
That's all really quite irrelevant.
No, the statistics of players making it in the most recent years that we can judge are easily the most relevant thing. You want me to believe that hype and fan-boy BS is more relevant than statistics?

The fact remains that the odds of a #15 player making it as a second liner are no better than 10%. You can't rely on that going forward.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
Players not reaching their potential and players not having that potential are two different things.
If you want to talk about what is Miller's "best case scenario" then I will agree that he can be a second liner. But it is preposterous to build a team where you rely on a prospect turning himself into something that statistically he has 90%+ odds of NOT doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
A lot of those players, specifically Chouinard, O'Mara, Nilsson, Radulov, Wishart and Plante had fairly large expectations.
Yup, that's called fan-boy hype.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
ignoring the last 3 years (read: most relevant) is convenient
How is it most relevant? These players are completely unproven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
since they include Erik Karlsson and Derek Forbort, who a LOT of people are very high on.
You mean the same fan-boy people who were very high on Chouinard, O'Mara and Nilsson? What are exactly are these people very high on? Must be some good stuff because they get high and don't remember what happened the last time they were high.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
Meanwhile, narrowing it down to the #15 pick specifically is an exercise in absolute futility
Another preposterous statement I knew you'd be making.

It doesn't matter if it's #15 or #14 or #17. You can look at any of these and see the same. I did it over the summer. I looked at hundreds of picks in this range - but I looked at all of them, not only at a few who made it. You just want to focus on the small minority that made it and ignore the large majority that did not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
Try looking at the NHLers selected 13-17 (two picks in either direction) in the past 8 years.
I did that. Search for my posts a few days before the draft.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
Notables Include:

Gormley, Forbort & Tarasenko (2010)
Kulikov, Kassian & Leddy (2009)
Boychuk & Karlsson (2008)
Eller & Shattenkirk (2007) McD was #12
Grabner (2006)
Hanzal (2005) M. Staal was 12, Kopitar was 11
Stafford & Radulov (2004)
D. Brown, Parise & Seabrook (2003)
So if you can cite a few successes, that proves anything? I can cite a few people who won the lottery, does that mean that selling your house to buy lottery tickets is a good idea?!

You can't look just at the people who made it. You have to look at everyone. In fact, the list of those who made it is so short, you started out with 13-17, then expanded it to include 11 and 12.

Plus, you are listing players who were just recently drafted because people are still "high" on their hype. In three years, most of these players will be in the minors and you will talk about a new crop of people who made you high.

Even in the spectacular 2003 draft, a once in a generation draft, only 6 out of 19 players who were drafted after the top-11 scored 200+ points in the NHL in the 8 years since the draft. Most players are playing in the minors or Europe, never to see NHL ice again.

In a weak draft like 2011, it won't be 6 out of 19. It will be 1-2 out of 19.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
If the argument/point you want to make is that we'll be lucky if Miller is capable of making an impact on the 3rd/2nd line within the next few years, fine.
Ok, so a player has second line potential, but there's a 90% chance he won't reach it. Should the team plan on him being a second liner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
It's a different argument. There is simply no way a kid who was drafted 3 months ago at #15 is projected by "experts" to be a third liner right now though.
Miller is a good all-around player. He can fail to make the top-6 and still be a quality player. The Rangers would never go forward thinking they have a quality LW and they don't need to sign someone like Parise or trade for a LW.

If they are penciling him somewhere, it's on the third line because he has about a 40% chance of being a solid bottom-6 guy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
If there's a red flag half way through his OHL season, or a big injury, or next year he's not taking a step forward, the expectations will likely drop, but RIGHT NOW, immediately after his draft, you can bet the organizations is "projecting" Miller to be a top six player.

"Projecting" does not mean "best case scenario." It means what is his realistic scenario. The most realistic scenario is that he will be a quality third liner. If the Rangers get a 15+20=35 defensive forward out of Miller, they will be very happy with how they used this draft pick.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 01:53 AM
  #73
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by donpaulo View Post
not sure I buy the Wolski OR Parise zero sum game conclusion, because it would be Wolski + $ or Parise.

It's possible to have both Wolski and Parise, but then the Rangers have to lose MZA and Prust. On the other hand, they can have both MZA and Prust, but not Wolski.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2011, 01:59 AM
  #74
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
Why not just take a grinder since his maximum upside will be role player?

Plenty of teams take grinders, but fans buy into the hype that their 22 overall pick will be a power forward like Tkachuk, rathar than another Prust. When they realize what they got, they think the player is a bust. But, of course, he's not.

That's why I was advocating drafting small guys with a lot of skill. We have so much depth, we don't need to "at least get a player out of this draft." We can afford to get nobody while we swing for the fences, in the hope that instead of pulling another Brian Boyle, we will pull another Marian Hossa.

But it's easy for fans to pretend that the future Boyle will actually be a future Jagr, so everyone always wants a big guy in the later parts of the draft, and are always shocked when he inevitably fails to become a star.

With a small guy, the reason he dropped to #20 is usually his size. With a big guy, that reason is his lack of upside. But it's easy to pretend otherwise, and certainly team management won't admit to it.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.